State Canker Program Called Costly, Unnecessary

Healthy Trees Cut Down, State Supreme Court Told

October 8, 2003|By Mark Hollis Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE — Warning that it could cost more than $1 billion to wipe out every trace of citrus canker in Florida, lawyers for South Florida homeowners and governments in Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties asked the state Supreme Court on Tuesday to stop the state from entering private yards after healthy trees.

Cutting down residential trees that don't show signs of canker is unnecessary, ineffectual and potentially very expensive, the attorneys argued. They said the state hasn't fully explored alternatives for controlling the plant disease, such as leaving large buffer zones around commercial citrus groves.

The state's $73 million-a-year canker eradication program, already much maligned, was blasted during a 45-minute hearing in a case that will settle the constitutionality of the 2002 Florida law that allows for the destruction of citrus trees within 1,900 feet of any canker-infected tree.

Critics say the law violates the property rights of homeowners who are not guaranteed "full and fair compensation" for the trees they lose. The price for that, some residents and lawyers have estimated, is potentially $1 billion.

But state officials told the court the law is constitutional because it does mandate payment to homeowners for trees cut, just not as much as some homeowners think their trees are worth.

Residents get $100 for the first tree removed on their property along with a Wal-Mart voucher worth $55 for each additional tree destroyed. Homeowners also have a right to ask the courts for more money.

Beyond the financial issues, attorneys for the state Department of Agriculture defended cutting trees by saying substantial scientific evidence shows that it controls canker. Taking down infected trees, they said, is the best way to protect the state's $9 billion-a-year citrus industry.

The court must decide, according to Arthur England, a lawyer for Department of Agriculture, not whether the best science is being used in the eradication program but whether legislators came up with a "reasonable" response to a threat to a major state industry.

"Legislators had the science, they had history, they had case-law history that all said [citrus canker] is a major problem," England told the justices. "There's no doubt that there was a valid basis for the Legislature to act

The law under review allows the state to remove citrus trees within 1,900 feet of any canker-infected tree without a homeowner's permission. The state contends that all trees within that zone have little or no economic value because they have been "exposed" to canker and are hosts for spreading the disease.

The trees are removed under the assumption that doing so is necessary to slow the spread of canker, which is not dangerous to humans and does not harm trees, but causes unsightly bruises on the fruit. Citrus farmers say the bruises make the fruit less marketable.

Since 1995, the state has spent almost $30 million on payments to homeowners and has cut 632,000 trees statewide along with another 1.9 million in commercial groves.

The high court justices, who gave no indication of when or how they will respond to the arguments, focused most of their questions on whether the law satisfies constitutional burdens of fair compensation when the state seizes private property.

Signaling that at least some members of the court are ready to side with the state on the question of the law's constitutionality, Justice Charles Wells said: "Isn't this really the Legislature's prerogative to deal with [citrus canker] this way?"

The legal challenge to the eradication program grew out of a lawsuit brought by Jack Haire, a retiree living on a half-acre in Fort Lauderdale and the lead plaintiff in the case. He contends his 10 citrus trees are worth at least $10,000.

The case first went before Circuit Court Judge J. Leonard Fleet of Fort Lauderdale. He ruled the 1,900-foot rule unconstitutional last year and blocked cutting statewide. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach upheld most of the law in January, causing the opponents to ask the high court to step in.

Mark Hollis can be reached at mhollis@sun-sentinel.com or at 850-224-6214.